Something not known to science - Think Atheist2015-08-02T18:53:40Zhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/something-not-known-to-science?commentId=1982180%3AComment%3A1261187&xg_source=activity&feed=yes&xn_auth=noI'm not sure what superiority…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-02-22:1982180:Comment:12632802013-02-22T18:24:46.567ZMat Waldiehttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/MatWaldie
<p>I'm not sure what superiority dance you guys are are on a trip about, but its cool with me. you guys taking some time to bust my balls I take as a compliment that you took the time:) I was not discussing entanglement btw. I was talking about the duality of particles at a quantum level. How do you supposed the hadron collider knows one particle from the other? Is the instrument I posted above ficticious somehow? instead of laughing learn me sumthin.</p>
<p>I'm not sure what superiority dance you guys are are on a trip about, but its cool with me. you guys taking some time to bust my balls I take as a compliment that you took the time:) I was not discussing entanglement btw. I was talking about the duality of particles at a quantum level. How do you supposed the hadron collider knows one particle from the other? Is the instrument I posted above ficticious somehow? instead of laughing learn me sumthin.</p> Nothing whatsoever to do with…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-02-22:1982180:Comment:12632232013-02-22T01:09:45.562ZSteveInCOhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/SteveInCO
<p>Nothing whatsoever to do with entangled electrons.</p>
<p>Go read up on what an electron is in relation to an atom, and an atom in relation to a molecule. At which point you will understand why Unseen laughed.</p>
<p>Nothing whatsoever to do with entangled electrons.</p>
<p>Go read up on what an electron is in relation to an atom, and an atom in relation to a molecule. At which point you will understand why Unseen laughed.</p> Oh, really? So, subatomic par…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-02-22:1982180:Comment:12632222013-02-22T01:04:32.627ZUnseenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Unseen
<p>Oh, really? So, subatomic particles are made of chemicals. Do you think they are elements, compounds, or mixtures?</p>
<p>Bwahahahahaha!</p>
<p>Oh, really? So, subatomic particles are made of chemicals. Do you think they are elements, compounds, or mixtures?</p>
<p>Bwahahahahaha!</p> Single Particle Explorer (SPE…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-02-21:1982180:Comment:12628782013-02-21T18:01:32.179ZMat Waldiehttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/MatWaldie
<p><b>Single Particle Explorer (SPE)</b> enables you to reliably determine <br/>the <b>chemical composition</b>, <b>number</b>, <b>shape</b> and <b>size</b>, of each individual particle larger than 0.5 µm.</p>
<p>The above is an industrial application they now have detectors developed for the accelerator that may go much smaller. They are sure this is the same particle.</p>
<p><b>Single Particle Explorer (SPE)</b> enables you to reliably determine <br/>the <b>chemical composition</b>, <b>number</b>, <b>shape</b> and <b>size</b>, of each individual particle larger than 0.5 µm.</p>
<p>The above is an industrial application they now have detectors developed for the accelerator that may go much smaller. They are sure this is the same particle.</p> Unseen thank you!
I found my…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-02-21:1982180:Comment:12626662013-02-21T04:02:58.759ZJames Coxhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/JamesCox
<p>Unseen thank you!</p>
<p>I found my reference from another source, that seemed to suggest that the rather newage implications/interpritation of quantum mechanics was false. That no C violation was to be implied. The Wikipedia posting seems to be a qualification only. Till I know other wise, I shall stand corrected. I doubt that this affects the cost of beans in China much...</p>
<p>Unseen thank you!</p>
<p>I found my reference from another source, that seemed to suggest that the rather newage implications/interpritation of quantum mechanics was false. That no C violation was to be implied. The Wikipedia posting seems to be a qualification only. Till I know other wise, I shall stand corrected. I doubt that this affects the cost of beans in China much...</p> Quantum entanglement is a for…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-02-21:1982180:Comment:12629162013-02-21T03:32:11.436ZUnseenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Unseen
<p><span>Quantum entanglement is a form of quantum superposition.</span><span> When a measurement is made</span><span> and it causes one member of such a pair to take on a definite value (e.g., clockwise spin), the other member of this entangled pair will at any subsequent time</span><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-6"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#cite_note-6" rel="nofollow">[6]</a></sup><span> be found to have taken the appropriately correlated value (e.g.,…</span></p>
<p><span>Quantum entanglement is a form of quantum superposition.</span><span> When a measurement is made</span><span> and it causes one member of such a pair to take on a definite value (e.g., clockwise spin), the other member of this entangled pair will at any subsequent time</span><sup id="cite_ref-6" class="reference"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#cite_note-6">[6]</a></sup><span> be found to have taken the appropriately correlated value (e.g., counterclockwise spin). Thus, there is a correlation between the results of measurements performed on entangled pairs, and this correlation is observed even though the entangled pair may have been separated by arbitrarily large distances. </span><sup id="cite_ref-7" class="reference"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#cite_note-7"></a></sup><span>In Quantum entanglement, part of the transfer happens instantaneously. </span><sup id="cite_ref-8" class="reference"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#cite_note-8"></a></sup><em>Repeated experiments have verified that this works even when the measurements are performed more quickly than light could travel between the sites of measurement: there's no slower-than-light influence that can pass between the entangled particles.</em> (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement" target="_blank">source</a>)<sup id="cite_ref-9" class="reference"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#cite_note-9"><br/></a></sup></p>
<p>The emphasis is mine.</p>
<p>I think I may have been wrong to have used the term "vast distance." Rather, far enough away that the simultaneity could not be have accomplished at slower than light speeds.</p> "where something happening to…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-02-21:1982180:Comment:12629112013-02-21T03:21:39.296ZJames Coxhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/JamesCox
<p>"where something happening to a local particle can have a simultaneous effect on another particle a vast distance away."</p>
<p>Sadly, due to the popularization of the subject, people making this point have not looked deeply into the 'details'. In the theory part, they mention that no effect propagation faster than the speed of light is implyed. This limit is still assumed. I do have to say though, that it would be very nice to have atleast one allowable violation. LOL</p>
<p>"where something happening to a local particle can have a simultaneous effect on another particle a vast distance away."</p>
<p>Sadly, due to the popularization of the subject, people making this point have not looked deeply into the 'details'. In the theory part, they mention that no effect propagation faster than the speed of light is implyed. This limit is still assumed. I do have to say though, that it would be very nice to have atleast one allowable violation. LOL</p> I have known my share of folk…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-02-21:1982180:Comment:12627452013-02-21T03:05:06.995ZJames Coxhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/JamesCox
<p>I have known my share of folks, including myself at times, that could just about predict the 'next comment'. Sadly a few people I have known seem to be a little overly predictable. This can come from excess exposure, living together, or 'mental universe size', where you can finally get to the top of another's functional/cognitive space, and start looking around. I expect we each carry this 'top' with us, with a little variation thrown in for novelty.</p>
<p>I find myself very happy when I…</p>
<p>I have known my share of folks, including myself at times, that could just about predict the 'next comment'. Sadly a few people I have known seem to be a little overly predictable. This can come from excess exposure, living together, or 'mental universe size', where you can finally get to the top of another's functional/cognitive space, and start looking around. I expect we each carry this 'top' with us, with a little variation thrown in for novelty.</p>
<p>I find myself very happy when I can't find it in another person, but just figure that my monkey brain just stopped looking for the bananas... </p> Sorry, an explanation I can't…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-02-21:1982180:Comment:12628182013-02-21T02:36:00.171ZUnseenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Unseen
<p>Sorry, an explanation I can't understand doesn't really answer my question. In fact, I think you're denying the possibility that one can know two particles in different places are the same particle. <span style="font-size: 13px;">Like I said, they don't come with serial numbers, and I assume one particle of a type looks like any other particle of the same type. "All electrons look the same to me!"</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13px;">Am I wrong?</span></p>
<p>Sorry, an explanation I can't understand doesn't really answer my question. In fact, I think you're denying the possibility that one can know two particles in different places are the same particle. <span style="font-size: 13px;">Like I said, they don't come with serial numbers, and I assume one particle of a type looks like any other particle of the same type. "All electrons look the same to me!"</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13px;">Am I wrong?</span></p> They suspend the particle in…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-02-21:1982180:Comment:12626502013-02-21T00:45:15.232ZMat Waldiehttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/MatWaldie
<p>They suspend the particle in a field of energy and focus in on one like a photo paper, its an image of the particle because the actual particle is in and out of existance to quickly. But that does bring up a more amazing possiblity that no matter how close in you get on a particle that there truely is not one.</p>
<p>I do like entanglement although not so sure I get behind completely the multiverse theory. I think that its more of an attempt to narrow things down to hard and fast rules. I do…</p>
<p>They suspend the particle in a field of energy and focus in on one like a photo paper, its an image of the particle because the actual particle is in and out of existance to quickly. But that does bring up a more amazing possiblity that no matter how close in you get on a particle that there truely is not one.</p>
<p>I do like entanglement although not so sure I get behind completely the multiverse theory. I think that its more of an attempt to narrow things down to hard and fast rules. I do lean toward waves of possiblities as a better explanation of quantum mechanics.</p>